What's sad is how you hate things just because they are not your version of how things should be. I am getting sick and tried of being looked on as a less than Christian by the ones who think they know better because I and others hold to the ancient faith once for all delivered. The problem is all this not praying to Saints but the idea that they are "asleep" , "dead", "can't hear" which is a new and harmful thing in the Church. I cross myself, partake of the Holy Eucharist, pray to the Saints, practice the Ancient Faith. Good Day Insult removed. -Admin
I wonder why so many people mistake disagreement for hatred? The Pharisees would've accepted prayers to the departed today, because they used the same reasoning as your side: "it's tradition". The Pharisee mindset isn't just a concern for moral purity, but also an overweening reverence for "tradition" as if it were holy. We think it's a new and harmful thing to pray to the saints, yet you say we "look on you as less than Christian" for saying so. If that's the case, I have to say that you're looking on us as "less than Christian". Let's be logical and stop making such silly accusations! The greatest rhetorical tactic is to say "I practice the ancient faith", which is not provable because the ancient faith wasn't photographed, videotaped, or recorded. All you can do is go on faith and reason. I'm just using my reason to come to these conclusions. I haven't pronounced anathema upon you or damned you or anything. Don't be angry! This forum is for debating subjects, and that is what we are doing. Some people are just too sensitive to have their opinions questioned, so they would do better to observe rather than try to take part.
Praying to Saints is as Ancient as Christianity itself. Beneath your compassion we take refuge, Theotokos. Our petitions do not despise in time of trouble, but from dangers ransom us, Only Holy, Only Blessed This prayer to The Blessed Virgin Mary dates back to 250 AD. Of course the Bible says the saints offer prayers for us to. So yes the "no saints"silliness is new. You can plainly see the practice is Ancient
Little Brother I will ask you again what is 'Our religion'? Have you found what you believe to be authentic?
Our religion is the Christian religion announced by our Lord and Saviour the Christ. He gave us commandments, two new laws, and responsibilities. Comforting ourselves doesn't principally enter into it.
You know that is not the question I asked brother... You are spending a lot of time telling others that what they are doing is wrong, so what is this brand of Christianity that to you is authentic... you must know as you have no problems saying what is right... You wouldn't be having a lend of us would you? I am sorry if I sound a little frustrated but this is a fair question - have you changed your denomination of Christianity yes or no and if you have can you please tell me what it is?
The Sub tuum praesidium, as already mentioned, could've been composed by any gnostic, montanist, or heretical sect. Is there proof that it was definitely used by orthodox Christians? If not, it cannot be admitted as evidence. I see that Cyprian told his brethren, in an epistle, to keep praying for the world once they had died. That seems to indicate that he didn't believe it was possible to ask them after they'd died - or else he wouldn't be telling them to keep praying after death. It is unfortunate that by the 340s already, prayers to the departed had crept in to the liturgy, which is supposed to be dedicated wholly to God. The quote by Origen is nothing we protestants disagree with at all. By the way, protestants don't say "no saints", but rather, "no trying to contact the saints". Does the Bible literally say that the departed are praying for us? Even if they are, no one disputes that or has any problem with that. The actual issue is that the Bible doesn't tell us to try to talk to the departed, and in the Old Testament it outright forbids talking to the dead. I think you are under a small misapprehension here. Many of us make the sign of the cross happily, receive our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament, and practice the ancient faith sole and entire. What do you think of this logic:
I am spending a lot of time presenting contrary options to peoples' assumptions, and giving others things to think about. It may very well turn out that God wants us to ask the dead to pray for us. If so, I will be very happy to repent and follow my Master. None of this is set in stone, but I am trying to present the side that makes the most sense to me, and which seems historically Christian. Your relativism doesn't really help debates in objective fact, Gordon. Whenever we get a good set of ideas going, you come in and say something like 'well that's only your truth, and I'll have my truth'. It derails every conversation, and makes it a joke. What's the point of doing that? There is one truth, which we're trying to find out. Post-modernism has no place in Christian theology! What do you mean by 'changed'? I am trying to follow the ancient faith of the Fathers which they found in the divine Scriptures. You of all people know that the paper with "X denomination" on it doesn't define our religion! What we should be trying to found out is whether our disagreements are over subjects that could potentially harm us or even damn us. That's important too, and it's why I am so passionate about this. But thanks for your consideration.
Perhaps not, but even if it isn't salvific and it's just daft to talk to people who can't hear us, I'd rather have spent that time praising God more. The same goes for if prayer to the departed is allowed. I've never heard a Catholic or Orthodox person say that it's a requirement or obligatory, though they did think me strange for not participating in it as a Catholic. I think my Reformed sympathies tend to blow this out of proportion a little. Many evangelical and low church types simply do not want to allow anything that might possibly become idolatrous, even remotely.
How can faith be outlined in cases of objective fact brother? I am not really sure how you can talk about truth as if there is only one truth, if I believe something to be the truth and you believe the opposite how can that be anything but my truth and your truth. None of this is in anyway a joke at all it is really sad in my humble opinion. Ask yourself this question - do you think our Lord Jesus Christ came to this world as a human, died on the cross for our salvation and then ascended into heaven, just so supposedly righteous men could spend the next 2000 years arguing over the method they use to worship God and love one another? I think it is sad that these types of silly arguments have divided the Church, but it has and I will continue to point that out because I believe it is every Christians duty to do so.
It's definitely not a joke. I find it very saddening that you believe a Muslim's faith is equivalent to a Christian's faith in validity. As faith, they are equally faithful, but as beliefs in things that are really true, they are not equal. There is only one God, in Three Persons, the second of which became incarnate. Since Islam and Christianity contradict each other in this, do you propose that we don't bother to try and found out which is more credible, or more likely to be true? Should we just let people believe "their truth", and we continue with "our truth"? It's either true that there is one God in three Persons or there is one God in one person (Allah). We look to the crediblity of each claimant and the sense of what they say, and determine what seems true. This is logic, as well as faith. I hope you know that your position isn't anything like the position of the Church for more than 1700 years or so. Any words you use can be interpreted in a vastly different sense by anyone, if truths are relative. What if I mean "Dog" when you mean "Lamp"? We can't have any meaningful conversation at all in this case. We are not righteous! That's the whole point of Protestantism's message. Praying to the saints as if their righteousness, merit, and holiness can gain something that we regular people can't gain by asking Christ, is an attack on the doctrine of our sinfulness and unrighteousness. Now, if by "righteous" you mean "believes one truth and wants others to believe it", then yes, Christ became incarnate, died, and ascended so righteous men could spend 2000 years "arguing", etc. Well, your definition of sad is different from mine. I define it as good! Let's just go around in circles then.
So brother how you determine the faith of the Muslim is no less a faith then the faith of the Christian, or the Buddhist, or the Taoist, or the Jew, or the [INSERT OTHER FAITH] system here? What seems true to me does not necessarily seem true to you....
It is because Christ is risen, and Mohammad is dead. Our belief in Christ risen is not only by blind assumptive faith, but because we have heard from credible men that it is so. They are credible because they constantly write of their own faults in their testimonies. Does Mohammad testify to his own faults, and make his message credible? If you believe that someone else can say "Christ is otherwise than physically risen from the dead" and speak truth, you can't call yourself a Franciscan or a Christian, and the same goes for me or anyone else. That's only because your experience or my experience is bereft of some sort of evidence needed to establish truth on one side. All truths have proofs, no matter how divine or obscure, because all truths really exist. ~ Now, on this saint-prayers topic at large: so long as it is just asking the departed to pray and nothing more, and not in the context of the Divine Liturgy, then Christians cannot find fault with it or consider it a salvation issue. If that is all that is being claimed, and nothing more, then I have nothing more to say.
All the Prophets of old are dead last time I looked I believe Mohammad was a prophet and Allah was another name for God, and over in the Hindu camp all their deities were just different images of the same God... so I am still waiting for your point.
Good example! The point, in this case, is: what the eastern Syriac Christians mean by "Allah" is different from what Muslims mean by Allah. The first is God the Father, in relationship to the Son and Holy Ghost in the Trinity. The second is God, I suppose what we would call the Father. Muslims deny that Allah needs to be approached by Christ (His True Divine Son). Do you think the beliefs of Muslims are "true in their own way", or something like that? If so, you must deny Christianity in at least some fashion. This is the slippery, silly slope of "your truth my truth".